WH Bury Problems

[Harry D]

Agreed all over - but Harryīs original statement: "one of the most infamous and elusive killers in history was actually a drunken wife-beater", does not exactly point to somebody who simply steadied his nerves with a sip of port...

The term "drunken" is a relative one, Fish.

[Elamarna]

Fisherman and Harry D

I see a couple of very good reasons to think Long and Cadosh were wrong: The were both adamant that they did NOT have the times wrong, referring to how they had checked with nearby clocks. And they were bot in conflict with the assessment of Phillips.

True, but we also have Richardson, who's statement fits far better with Cadosch and Long than with Phillips.

I am doing no such thing. I am saying that when people get drunk, they will normally get loud. And I will add that murders perpetraded by drunk people are very often cases of non-premeditated manslaughter.

Having worked with several alcoholics over the years, they often appear sober, and certainly are not loud when in their normal condition

Thanks for that. You will note how Keppel works from the very reasonable presumption that drunk people make for detectable killers. And basically, that is the exact point I am making - drunk people are NORMALLY loud people, drunk people will NORMALLY be quite easy to detect when killing somebody, drunk people will NORMALLY not hande a knife with utter precision and skill.

The fact that we may always find the odd exception to the rule is something I pointed to earlier, saying that it is strange how originators of such suggestions regularly forget what the normal outcome is, replacing it with joy over having found a rare exception.

I tend to agree with you about drunks Fisherman.

Alcoholics are a different matter as I mentioned above.

Indeed the two I worked with for many years, could only perform there jobs correctly when not sober, they were very well organized and able to carry out complex procedures in the laboratory.

To those who did not know them they would appear not to be drunk,it would only be when one got close enough to smell the alcohol on their breath that one would know they had been drinking.

They were what I gather are called functioning alcoholics and the same could not be applied to all obviously.

Can I see the killer as a casual drunk? possible but unlikely, given all the killer had to do.

Can i see the killer as a functioning alcoholic,...... certainly.!


Steve

[Fisherman]

But drinking, and even being drunk, to a point, does not necessarily mean one would be careless, noisy or tripping over his own movements. Some times drinking supplies those who do it with artificial confidence, and once they achieve that they stop drinking and move on to whatever they needed the artificial confidence for, be it murder, a job interview, or the ability to talk to a pretty girl at the bar. He didn't have to be a staggering, obviously-drunk kind of drinker. Just one who used it give himself a buzz and steel his nerves, while largely maintaining control of his faculties.

Agreed all over - but Harryīs original statement: "one of the most infamous and elusive killers in history was actually a drunken wife-beater", does not exactly point to somebody who simply steadied his nerves with a sip of port...

[Fisherman]

Harry D: A certain leeway can be afforded for discrepancies in timings back then. I see no reason to believe that either Long or Cadosch were lying. And like I said, since no one else was reportedly in the yard at that time, it's not unlikely that the noise was made by Chapman's corpse.

I see a couple of very good reasons to think Long and Cadosh were wrong: The were both adamant that they did NOT have the times wrong, referring to how they had checked with nearby clocks. And they were bot in conflict with the assessment of Phillips.


You're comparing a drunken brawl to a premeditated murder. Apples, oranges.

I am doing no such thing. I am saying that when people get drunk, they will normally get loud. And I will add that murders perpetraded by drunk people are very often cases of non-premeditated manslaughter.

I never said it was a rule, I said that there's shown to be a correlation between alcohol/drug addiction and certain serial killers (including Bundy, who you originally put forward as a counterexample).

There need not be any correlation at all, simple as that.

And no, Bundy was speaking about his serial killer days. He admitted to Robert Keppel that he needed to drink before he went on the prowl for victims. Here is an extract from Keppel's book on Bundy & the Green River Killer:
"Were you drunk when you got Hawkins? I asked again in disbelief, this time because it seemed that his apparently frequent drunken states did not impede his ability to avoid detection.
"Yes, more or less, but yes. That was basically part of the MO at that time."[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that. You will note how Keppel works from the very reasonable presumption that drunk people make for detectable killers. And basically, that is the exact point I am making - drunk people are NORMALLY loud people, drunk people will NORMALLY be quite easy to detect when killing somebody, drunk people will NORMALLY not hande a knife with utter precision and skill.

The fact that we may always find the odd exception to the rule is something I pointed to earlier, saying that it is strange how originators of such suggestions regularly forget what the normal outcome is, replacing it with joy over having found a rare exception.

[Single-O-Seven]

Am I? I would say that if there was a 9 out of 10 chance that the Ripper drank before he murdered, it would still apply that this killer probably belonged to the last tenth.
Statistics are useful many times, but in this case, we have specific reasons to think that the killer was not drunk. The total lack of noise, the ability to sneak in and out unnoticed, the skilful cutting performed all speak of a killer who was not under the influence.

I know that you really, really, really, REALLY want me to be wrong, John, and I can only say that it didnīt work this time either.

Maybe in the future, though! Who knows?

But drinking, and even being drunk, to a point, does not necessarily mean one would be careless, noisy or tripping over his own movements. Some times drinking supplies those who do it with artificial confidence, and once they achieve that they stop drinking and move on to whatever they needed the artificial confidence for, be it murder, a job interview, or the ability to talk to a pretty girl at the bar. He didn't have to be a staggering, obviously-drunk kind of drinker. Just one who used it give himself a buzz and steel his nerves, while largely maintaining control of his faculties.

[Harry D]

Long said she saw a woman she believed to be Chapman, talking to a man outside 29 Hanbury Street - but, you know, that was AFTER Cadosheīs observation, not before. And both witnesses were certain to the timings.
Plus of course, if Phillips was correct - which I think he was - both witnesses were wrong.
So itīs anything but pretty solid, Iīm afraid.

A certain leeway can be afforded for discrepancies in timings back then. I see no reason to believe that either Long or Cadosch were lying. And like I said, since no one else was reportedly in the yard at that time, it's not unlikely that the noise was made by Chapman's corpse.

I have seen my fair share of drunken brawls, Harry, and I assume you may have too.
Have any of them been silent affairs? Regardless of whether the contrahents were only halfways to staggering? Or are they as a rule loud, boisterous affairs?

You're comparing a drunken brawl to a premeditated murder. Apples, oranges.

As for your stating that there is a relationship between substance abuse and serial killing, that is of course wrong. In individual cases, this may be so, but it is no rule at all.

I never said it was a rule, I said that there's shown to be a correlation between alcohol/drug addiction and certain serial killers (including Bundy, who you originally put forward as a counterexample).

And no, Bundy was speaking about his serial killer days. He admitted to Robert Keppel that he needed to drink before he went on the prowl for victims. Here is an extract from Keppel's book on Bundy & the Green River Killer:
"Were you drunk when you got Hawkins? I asked again in disbelief, this time because it seemed that his apparently frequent drunken states did not impede his ability to avoid detection.
"Yes, more or less, but yes. That was basically part of the MO at that time."

[Fisherman]

So basically the Ripper there is around a 1 in 2 chance the Ripper was drinking before he murdered. And Fisherman is wrong to say that a drunkard is unlikely to be the Ripper.

Am I? I would say that if there was a 9 out of 10 chance that the Ripper drank before he murdered, it would still apply that this killer probably belonged to the last tenth.
Statistics are useful many times, but in this case, we have specific reasons to think that the killer was not drunk. The total lack of noise, the ability to sneak in and out unnoticed, the skilful cutting performed all speak of a killer who was not under the influence.

I know that you really, really, really, REALLY want me to be wrong, John, and I can only say that it didnīt work this time either.

Maybe in the future, though! Who knows?

[Pierre]

So basically the Ripper there is around a 1 in 2 chance the Ripper was drinking before he murdered. And Fisherman is wrong to say that a drunkard is unlikely to be the Ripper.

Donīt forget that there were other reasons for drinking in 1888 compared to now.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

IFBI studies have also shown that in 49% of homicides, the killer had been drinking beforehand.

So basically the Ripper there is around a 1 in 2 chance the Ripper was drinking before he murdered. And Fisherman is wrong to say that a drunkard is unlikely to be the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Harry!

I googled Bundy and his drinking, and it seems to have been knit to his teens, when he drunk heavily before stalking women in their homes, hoping for them to undress.
Maybe that was what you were thinking of? If so, it was all before his killing spree.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Given that Chapman was seen with a punter minutes before Cadosch heard the noise, and no one else was reported in the yard at that time, I'd say it's pretty solid.

Long said she saw a woman she believed to be Chapman, talking to a man outside 29 Hanbury Street - but, you know, that was AFTER Cadosheīs observation, not before. And both witnesses were certain to the timings.
Plus of course, if Phillips was correct - which I think he was - both witnesses were wrong.
So itīs anything but pretty solid, Iīm afraid.

No argument there, but these incidents can't be discounted either.

Nope. Itīs either or, therefore.

There are different levels of intoxication. A staggering paralytic would almost certainly be robbed of his capacity to subdue a victim and mutilate them without causing a stir, but no one was suggesting Bury was totally wasted when he performed these crimes.

He could have been stone cold sober, even. But you said yourself that the Ripper was a drunken wife-beater, so I made the assumption that you believe that he killed while under the influence of alcohol.
I have seen my fair share of drunken brawls, Harry, and I assume you may have too.
Have any of them been silent affairs? Regardless of whether the contrahents were only halfways to staggering? Or are they as a rule loud, boisterous affairs?


I'm simply bringing it to your attention that, contrary to your belief, there is a relationship between substance abuse and serial killing. Bury's addiction doesn't take him out of the running by any means.

No, but it does make him less likely to have pulled of a handful of silent murders, sneaking in and leaving undetected. Likewise, would a drunk person be able to excise organs with a kind of skill that made a medico like Phillips allude to surgical expertise?

Personally, I think that a sober, calculating person, silent and cautious, would be a much better bid for the killerīs role than a drunkard. I have said the exact same about the suggestion that the killer (supposedly Kosminsky this time) suffered a psychotic episode when killing.

It always ends up in suggestions that it "cannot be excluded", and the more important matter - that it is nevertheless unlikely - seems to be conveniently forgotten.

As for your stating that there is a relationship between substance abuse and serial killing, that is of course wrong. In individual cases, this may be so, but it is no rule at all.

[Harry D]

As for Chapman, we donīt know that she was killed when Cadosch said he heard that thump. As you know?

Given that Chapman was seen with a punter minutes before Cadosch heard the noise, and no one else was reported in the yard at that time, I'd say it's pretty solid.

And we donīt know that Stride was killed by BS man. Right?

Plus we canīt tell if Kelly cried out. Can we?

No argument there, but these incidents can't be discounted either.

Is that the work of a drunken person, Harry? Is it?

Not bloody likely!

There are different levels of intoxication. A staggering paralytic would almost certainly be robbed of his capacity to subdue a victim and mutilate them without causing a stir, but no one was suggesting Bury was totally wasted when he performed these crimes.

And Gacy? Who said anything about Gacy? And Dahmer? Not me! Why did you bring then up? They killed people in their homes, where people would not hear what happened anyway. The Ripper victims were killed in the open, feet only from where people slept with open windows - or were AWAKE, even!

I'm simply bringing it to your attention that, contrary to your belief, there is a relationship between substance abuse and serial killing. Bury's addiction doesn't take him out of the running by any means.

[Fisherman]

I believe that Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy all had problems with alcohol. In fact, Bundy explained that he had to be "extremely drunk" when trolling for victims because the alcohol significantly reduced his inhibitions. FBI studies have also shown that in 49% of homicides, the killer had been drinking beforehand.

The killer wasn't a ninja. He didn't silence Chapman completely and let her crash against the fence. Had Albert Cadosch taken the liberty to peep over the fence, he would've locked eyes with the killer. Then we have the alleged man accosting Stride in the middle of the street, shouting obscenities at passers by, and potentially Mary Kelly was allowed to cry out before her death.

As for Chapman, we donīt know that she was killed when Cadosch said he heard that thump. As you know?

And we donīt know that Stride was killed by BS man. Right?

Plus we canīt tell if Kelly cried out. Can we?

But we CAN say that the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes dees were perpetrated in spots where people afterwards said "What? HERE? But it was all totally silent!!"

Is that the work of a drunken person, Harry? Is it?

Not bloody likely!

And Gacy? Who said anything about Gacy? And Dahmer? Not me! Why did you bring them up? They killed people in their homes, where people would not hear what happened anyway. The Ripper victims were killed in the open, feet only from where people slept with open windows - or were AWAKE, even!

[Harry D]

Very insightful! But how many of us are unremarkable...? 95 per cent, or something such?

I would also say that a drunkard would - to my humble and unremarkable eyes - be an unlikely Ripper, since drunken people are loud and careless people. I very much doubt that the silent stealthy person/s who killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were drunkenbolt/s.

On the whole, though, I would be VERY easily persuaded to go along with the overall concept that the killer was a grey, ordinary man on the surface of things. Like Ridgway, Sutcliffe, Rader, Bundy... non of whome were significantly drunk - or even tipsy - at the times of their deeds as far as I know.

I believe that Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy all had problems with alcohol. In fact, Bundy explained that he had to be "extremely drunk" when trolling for victims because the alcohol significantly reduced his inhibitions. FBI studies have also shown that in 49% of homicides, the killer had been drinking beforehand.

The killer wasn't a ninja. He didn't silence Chapman completely and let her crash against the fence. Had Albert Cadosch taken the liberty to peep over the fence, he would've locked eyes with the killer. Then we have the alleged man accosting Stride in the middle of the street, shouting obscenities at passers by, and potentially Mary Kelly was allowed to cry out before her death.

[Fisherman]

Bury is an iconoclastic suspect who destroys the mythology of the Ripper. I don't think many people are prepared to accept that one of the most infamous and elusive killers in history was actually a drunken wife-beater. However, history testifies that most serial killers are unremarkable people.

Very insightful! But how many of us are unremarkable...? 95 per cent, or something such?

I would also say that a drunkard would - to my humble and unremarkable eyes - be an unlikely Ripper, since drunken people are loud and careless people. I very much doubt that the silent stealthy person/s who killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were drunkenbolt/s.

On the whole, though, I would be VERY easily persuaded to go along with the overall concept that the killer was a grey, ordinary man on the surface of things. Like Ridgway, Sutcliffe, Rader, Bundy... non of whome were significantly drunk - or even tipsy - at the times of their deeds as far as I know.